BUILDING EDUCATION: FROM FRAGMENTATION TO INTEGRATION ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the present fragmented structure of building
education is neither based on appropriate premises nor sufficient in scope
to cover the diverse problem areas of building. The need for integration
in building studies is stressed, and an approach is proposed for integrated
education comprising two stages: basic building studies, and specialized
studies.
Keywords: Education, building, architecture, engineering.
INTRODUCTION
Building is one of the predominant activities of man and buildings constitute
the most salient aspects of mans existence on earth. This dichotomy of
process and product inheres in the word building which has a multitude
of meanings: First, building is an activity conducted by humans to answer
the most basic need of shelter as well as other social individual and abstract
needs; in this sense, it is a process of production and use. Secondly,
building is the product of that process, the facility or structure that
man builds. And thirdly, it is a complex, interacting set of physical,
psychic, social and cultural phenomena that is observable in both the process
and the product.
This diversity of meaning is indeed a reflection of the immense scope
of building. It should not be surprising, therefore, that within this scope
are involved as many different professional parties as the breadth of the
word implies. What is surprising and problematic, however, is the fact
that, usually, these parties have been educated in widely divergent backgrounds.
Thereby results a professional congregation of culturally alienated groups
struggling to cooperate in circumstances where little basis for common
understanding exists.
PROFESSIONAL FRAGMENTATION
The fact that there are distinctly discernible stages in building may
explain why, in our day, building professions have been compartmentalized
into groups such as architects, various engineers, surveyors, contractors,
realtors and facility managers. But, the design, construction and management
of buildings ... suffers the most fragmented decision-making process ...
The separation of architecture, architectural/engineering ... and engineering
of the built environment is counterproductive (Loftness
1995: 144). Each of buildings professional groups has formed its own terminology
and modes of operation, amplifying the consequences of this fragmentation.
Peters
points out, for example, that [a]lthough architectural and engineering
designers both deal with building, they each think very differently about
the same subject matter. ... [n]either profession often even cares to make
the effort to understand each other (1991, 23-24). Much of this alienation
may have to do with the historical development of specializations in building.
But even in themselves, specialized professions are further restricting
their remit. For example, [w]e witness an historical evolution where architect
becomes more and more distanced from the forces that govern the production
of buildings today (Tschumi 1995: 25).
As if fragmentation were not of serious concern, some groups have lost
all sense of purpose in their profession. Dwellings and buildings are
meant to be lived in, to be enjoyed, to provide enchantment and psychic
wellness for their users. ... Yet, mainstream architecture seems propelled
by ... ideas awkwardly adapted from literary criticism such as post-modern,
deconstructivist, retro-nostalgic, neo-classic and post-structuralist.
... New approaches to making shelters and buildings [should] ... appear
out of real needs and social shifts, not from self serving statements
or gestures by celebrity-architects (Papanek
1994: 10). This trend has gone so far that one such celebrity-architect,
Peter Eisenman, feels himself totally justified in saying: I do my work
for me; there are no other people for the architect. ... my best work
is without purpose. I invent purpose afterwards. ... Who cares about function?
That is the reduction of architecture to mindless convenience (qt. Cuff
1989: 66-67). A similar condition of professional deformation exists with
engineers: The knowledge base of a building engineer is within the areas
of science, technology and mathematics. But what is the use of an engineer,
who has little concept of buildability, cost, time, quality and the employment
of resources to achieve the desired structure? (Chandler
1994: 355)
EDUCATIONAL PROBLEMS
Fragmentation and professional alienation are also visible, might even
have their roots, in the many different institutions of higher education
dealing with building. Problems in the spatial organization of buildings
with respect to functional, visual and semantic requirements are considered
to be the domain of architects; this understanding finds its reflection
in the organization of these aspects as autonomous programs in schools
of architecture. Topics related to the structural, sanitary and environmental
systems of buildings, on the other hand, are conceived as the domain of
various engineers. The education of these specialists has been structured
in schools of engineering, along lines originating in disciplines outside
building and which often remain marginal in that field itself. Not only
are these two different educational milieus, they are two different cultures:
The potential differences between architectural and engineering students
are recognized, magnified, and made more rigid by the difference in their
education (Salvadori 1991, xiv).
Beyond architecture and engineering lie construction, maintenance and
management which are undertaken either by entrepreneurs with no background
in building or by professionals who have learnt these problems on the job.
Often, policy makers, administrators and legislators dealing with building
have little educational background in it. Educational programs in these
areas are still rare, and those that are available are often not well established
and developed sufficiently from either an academic or a professional perspective.
Because education with such compartmentation takes place in hermetically
closed environments, the respective fields have developed distorted approaches
of their own. With a tradition of describing building decisions mainly
in drawings, education in architecture has visual design as its essential
basis and medium. Architectural schools are often organized within or in
close relation with fine arts and have at the foundation of their studies
a design fetishism based on visual elements and principles. Ghirardo
argues that this mode of teaching architecture virtually dictates ...
a ... sensibility about architecture as the formal elaboration of a spatial
language independent of social and cultural issues, not to mention material
ones. In this curriculum, matters having to do with infrastructure, technology,
landscape, materials and structure are purely secondary, indeed, are often
viewed as intrusions into an otherwise pure system of form and space (1998:
29-30).
Mathematical models of the physical world, on the other hand, lie at
the foundation of engineering studies. For example, [i]n most European
engineering schools, education is oriented towards the development of skills
that are (i) well defined in quantitative terms, (ii) formulated in a well-defined
deterministic environment and (iii) identified as belonging to a particular
branch of the applied sciences (mechanics, electronics, thermodynamics,
management etc.) (Installé 1996: 341). Through
this understanding, building design has been transformed into a process
of computation, devoid of all other notions.
Building is a technical field as few others may claim to be. Yet, schools
of architecture or engineering often give no, or at best minimal, attention
to either principles such as efficiency, feasibility and buildability,
or to stages of building such as construction, use and maintenance. In
a study on the education of building professionals, it has been found that
[t]his is especially true for architectural schools that de-emphasize
the use of technology in ... construction methods, materials, and systems
in favor of teaching broad design subjects and that [t]echnology has
been largely eliminated from the engineering curriculum in most schools
so as to focus on science, math, and basic engineering principles (Committee
1995, 2). Often this appears as a problem of integration, rather than omission:
Although most architecture courses around the world do have ... technology
of the built environment as part of their curricula, the perennial problem
is the lack of integration of these technological subjects within the
architectural design process (Banarjee and DeGraff
1996:
185).
A further area of serious concern relates to the social and managerial
effectiveness of building professionals. Most architectural and engineering
students leave school with little knowledge of business, economics, and
management, adversely affecting graduates ability to serve their clients,
understand the concerns of their employers, manage projects effectively,
and qualify for more responsible positions (Committee
1995, 2).
There have been many attempts at overcoming some of these deficiencies
of the present structures of education. They have taken the form of close
departmental cooperation as described by Loftness
(1995), architectural/building engineering departments (Fritchen
and Tredway 1998) or joint programs between architecture and engineering.
But many of these have contributed little to the resolution of fragmentation
because they do not address the essential problem of cultural dichotomy.
Billington, describing a joint engineering-architecture program states
that it is not in the least interdisciplinary. You never once experience
a course taught by both an architect and an engineer. Rather, you go between
two different cultures. When you go from the engineering school to the
architecture school, you clearly enter a completely different world (Discussion:
50).
Practitioners are needed who understand the interdisciplinary nature
of decisions affecting the built environment, are competent in complex
fields of knowledge and decision-making, and are able to lead multidisciplinary
teams designing and constructing the built environment with common, performance-oriented
goals (Loftness 1995: 144). How, then, are we
to achieve what she sees as imperative?
A RADICAL APPROACH TO INTEGRATED STUDIES
The need for change in the present structures of building education
is being increasingly voiced. One source of such concerns is the many deficiencies
of present approaches in fulfilling the demands of the modern world: The
ever-increasing speed of technological change in the twentieth century
calls for a drastic reorientation of technical design practices, i.e. for
a paradigmatic change in the way engineers work. ... To reach this goal,
it
is crucial to introduce changes in the training of engineers (Jelsma
and Wondstra 1997: 277). Another source is the present limitations
in educational scope: Hermetic debates within architecture need to be
... infected with other disciplines. ... I call for a break in tradition.
Architectural education should no longer be limited to the purely architectural
project (Leach 1995: 28)
Also of concern is the restriction of approach to training: Would it
not be a positive step ... if architectural education could expand its
remit beyond professional training, and develop, together with other
disciplines, more universally applicable ways of studying the worldalbeit
with a bias towards the built form and space? (Teymur
1992: 92).
Yes, indeed it would; but not in the form of an expansion of architectural
education. A crucial prerequisite would be to recognize the autonomy of
building, freeing it from all biased conceptions as a form of art or as
a branch of engineering. Within universities, a new institution should
be established independent of schools of architecture and engineering.
The term Faculty of Building should be preferred; firstly because it
connotes a center of university studies rather than one of professional
training and, secondly, because it disavows all traditional associations
through the use of the professionally and educationally value-laden terms
architecture and engineering.
In light of the educational problems discussed above, four guiding principles
may be set for this program: (i) Commonality of purpose and background.
(ii) Comprehensive coverage of all building areas. (iii) Analysis before
synthesis. (iv) Adaptive specialization.
A major cause of fragmentation in education is the lack of a common
conception of building. This can be remedied by initiating studies for
all aspects of building from a common base, through a program of basic
building studies, which would also serve for comprehensive coverage of
all aspects of building in the faculty.
Often, encouraging specialization at the start of ones education in
building, as is done through a choice of architectural or engineering programs,
is counterproductive. The design fetishism of present-day architectural
education is one of the primary stumbling blocks in this respect. Early
specialization needs to be overcome by putting analysis before synthesis,
by devoting the initial years of education to a complete understanding
of the multitudinous aspects of building. Mark and Billington
have found, for example, that students often have difficulty in deciding
on engineering or architecture during their early college years, and [a
joint] program allows them to put off that decision until their junior
year (1995: 95). By delaying the onset of specialization, students could
develop awareness of their own talents and interests.
Building cannot be effected without specialists because of its vast
scope, but such specialists must be in a position to understand and deal
with the concerns of other specialists. This should be brought about by
allowing specialization in a common educational milieu and growing out
of a common background.
An university program congruous with these principles can be structured
in a two-tiered form consisting of an initial program of basic building
studies leading into subsequent specialized building studies. Basic building
studies should cover instruction in the analysis of all fundamental aspects
of building and provide, as well, an introduction to general university
studies. Specialized studies, on the other hand, should be so designed
as to respond to the intellectual interests and capabilities of individual
students which may be channeled into professional training or towards further
advanced studies in building. The latter part of specialized studies may
be conducted in the form of graduate studies.
BASIC STUDIES
The aim of basic studies is to acquaint the student with the world of
the intellect as is requisite in higher education, and with the fundamental
issues of building. These should extend over two years and should be required
of all students enrolled in the faculty of building. They should be exposed
to the general factors that affect building, to design, communication and
production issues, and to the basic modes of thought directed at understanding
the building.
The first year of basic studies, devoted to general studies, should
aim to form and develop the student's awareness of and attitude to the
built environment. In the second year, concentration should be on understanding
buildings. Studies should develop the analytic capacities of the student
through discussions of the issues involved on examples specifically chosen
from the accessible environment.
SPECIALIZED STUDIES
Specialized studies in building allow students to have further education
in building suited to their own interests and talents. Therefore, these
studies should have a pluralistic structure of multiple tracks, allowing
specialization in either the different professional aspects of building
such as design, construction, management or in academic studies in depth
in specific areas such as history, and physical or social building science.
The duration, phasing and requirements of specialized studies may vary
depending on the attributes of the track. It is important to assure that
these specialization tracks are not organized as autonomous departments
as this would run contrary to the spirit of integrated education and would
end in a reversion to previous forms of fragmentation.
Four specialization tracks appear to be appropriate for covering the
major areas of building: design, construction, management and building
science.
Specialization in design is essentially professional training that aims
at equipping the student with knowledge and skills necessary for designing
buildings. It would be convenient to effect this training in a master-apprentice
mold on designs of real projects. Accordingly instruction may take place
in design studios that form the backbone of this program; the topics handled
in these studios should be progressively more complex. The principle of
using successful and influential professional designers as studio instructors
should be considered a strength of this training. Students in the design
specialization track may choose to organize their studies towards one aspect
of design, such as spatial, structural or services design.
Specialization in construction consists of professional training that
aims at equipping the student with knowledge and skills necessary for constructing
high quality buildings in an efficient manner. Instruction should be structured
around construction projects that would form the backbone of this program.
The principle of using successful and influential construction professionals
as instructors in these projects should also be implemented.
Specialization in building management is aimed at equipping the student
with knowledge and skills necessary for formulating and administering policies
on the development and use of the built environment. Instruction should
be so structured that graduates of the program may easily continue their
graduate studies in building management or, alternatively, work as consultants,
facility managers, realtors, administrators in policy making positions
or in careers of building legislation.
Specialization in building science aims at equipping the student with
the knowledge and skills necessary for furthering their studies in building
at an advanced level. Instruction should be so structured that graduates
of the program may easily continue their graduate studies in building and
work as researchers in academia or professional research centers, or as
other specialists.
CONCLUSION
Among all of the fundamental activities of man, there is no other that
answers as many needs and has as many different aspects as does building.
It is perhaps because of this variety of aspects that education in building
is conducted in a fragmented manner and has not been able to develop an
integrated approach.
Such an approach has been proposed in this paper in the expectation
that it may bring solution to the many problems that have arisen in building
education over time. The particular approach taken may vary depending on
circumstances, but the guiding principles outlined should be observed.
The success of the approach will depend to a very great extent on the initiators
of the program, who should be careful not to bring along with them the
educational biases of their own background into the program.
REFERENCES
Banarjee, H.K. and E. DeGraff: 1996, Problem-based
learning in architecture: problems of integration in technical disciplines,
European
Journal of Engineering Education, 21.2: 185-195.
Chandler, Ian E.: 1992, The study of management
subjects in building engineering courses, European Journal of Engineering
Education, 17.4: 355-359.
Committee on Education of Facilities Design
and Construction Professionals: 1995, Education of Architects and Engineers
for Careers in Facility Design and Construction, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Cuff, Dana: 1989, Through the looking glass: seven
New York architects and their people, Architects People, Eds. Russell
Ellis and Dana Cuff, Oxford University Press, New York, 64-102.
Discussion, Bridging the Gap: Rethinking
the Relationship of Architect and Engineer, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Fritchen, David R. and Timothy C. Tredway: 1998,
Kansas State University architectural engineering, Journal of Architectural
Engineering, 4.1, 34-39.
Ghirardo, Diane: 1998, Form and the occluded
other, Forum II: Architectural Education for the 3rd Millenium,
Eds. Ay?e ?entürer and Fevzi Özersay, Eastern Mediterranean University,
Gazimagusa, Northern Cyprus, 29- 34.
Installé, Michel: 1996, How to educate future
engineers toward a better understanding of the relationship between technology,
society and environment, European Journal of Engineering Education,
21.4: 341-345.
Jelsma, Jaap and Egbert Wondstra: 1997, Integrated
training of engineers for a changing society, European Journal of Engineering
Education, 22.3: 277-293.
Leach, Neil: 1995, Fractures and breaks, Educating
Architects, Eds. Martin Pearce and Maggie Toy, Academy Editions, 26-29.
Loftness, Vivian: 1995, Architectural/engineering
education at Carnegie Mellon University, Journal of Architectural Engineering,
1.4, 144-146.
Mark, Robert and David P. Billington: 1995, Architecture
and engineering at Princeton University, Journal of Architectural Engineering,
1.2, 93-96.
Papanek, Victor: 1994, Foreword, Earth to Spirit:
In Search of Natural Architecture, by David Pearson, Gaia Books, London.
Peters, Tom F.: 1991, Architectural and engineering
design: two forms of technological thought on the borderline between empiricism
and science, Bridging the Gap: Rethinking the Relationship of Architect
and Engineer, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 23-35.
Salvadori, M.: 1991, Introduction: architect
versus engineer, Bridging the Gap: Rethinking the Relationship of Architect
and Engineer, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, xii-xv.
Teymur, Necdet: 1992, Architectural Education:
Issues in Architectural Practice and Policy, ?uestion Press, London.
Tschumi, Bernard: 1995, One, two, three: jump,
Educating
Architects, Eds. Martin Pearce and Maggie Toy, Academy Editions, 24-25.
Akademik Şeyler sayfasına dönmek için tıklayınız. |
||||